Maharashtra's 'speak Marathi or lose permit' rule faces legal challenge
What's the story
Maharashtra Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik had announced a new rule making knowledge of Marathi mandatory for licensed autorickshaw and taxi drivers from May 1. The rule also warns that permits could be canceled if drivers don't comply. However, this decision may face legal challenges as a similar mandate was struck down by the Bombay High Court in 2017.
Legal precedent
Similar rule struck down in 2017
In 2017, the Bombay High Court had quashed a similar rule by the transport department mandating Marathi proficiency for autorickshaw permits. The court found that the state did not have the legal authority to impose such a condition, as autorickshaws are classified as 'motor cabs,' which are exempt from this requirement under Rule 24.
Legal interpretation
What the court said in 2017
The court had observed that while Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules mandates knowledge of local language for 'public service vehicles,' it does not apply to motor cabs. The definition of a Contract Carriage under the law includes motor cabs, which are defined as vehicles carrying up to six passengers for hire or reward.
Official defense
Maharashtra government's justification for new eligibility condition
The Maharashtra government has justified the new eligibility condition by stating that Rule 24 lays down procedures for issuing badges to drivers of 'public service vehicles.' They argued that knowledge of Marathi is essential for effective communication with citizens and understanding road signs. However, this justification may not hold water in light of the court's earlier ruling.
Anticipated opposition
Drivers' unions likely to challenge new rule in court
Transport department officials have said that the new move only enforces an existing rule and does not introduce a new regime, The Indian Express reported. However, drivers' unions have argued that this decision violates fundamental rights. They are likely to challenge the new rule in court, citing concerns over freedom to practice a profession/business.